Appx how much do well-established indie artists earn per year?

[yosoymoki]

Indie musicians have been known for "keeping it real", so to speak, and receive a lot of credit for making music for creative/artistic/passionate reasons as opposed to writing music under the influence of heavy CASH. However, word of the indie scene has obviously spread to the mainstream.

So, say you're a well-established and well-known musician/band in the indie scene. An example could be The Decemberists or Vampire Weekend, who have received a lot of exposure in the past few years. You're on an independant label, you release an album every 2 years, you sell-out medium sized venues consistently across major cities in several countries, your albums reach the middle to upper levels of the Billboard's Top 100 slots, you've played on Letterman and Conan a couple of times, you've played at all the biggie music festivals.

So, how much are you pulling in a year?

By the way, this is pure curiosity and speculation. So please don't answer with questions as to why I care.

[jbertclassic]

I often wonder the same thing

[cshadows2887]

I often wonder the same thing

Seconded.

[x togepi x]

not very much.

[Rawrr]

Not a lot of money, but bands like Vampire Weekend aren't preaching about DIY ethics so it wouldn't be a big deal even if they were making a lot of money.

[yosoymoki]

What is "not very much" though? They are earning enough to where they make their living solely off their music. Are we talking about "not very much" as in-- "hmm. Maybe they're pulling in six-figures. But that's considered middle class these days. Especially for public figures"? Or "not very much" as in-- "Holy cow. Us fans need to gather around and do all we can to support them because they're working extremely hard and receive earnings that rival a school teacher's salary!"?

[youngz]

You probably won't earn a lot until you get to the Paramore level.

[kbi the crowing]

my friend tried to book vampire weekend and their touring manager/whoever was contacted asked for a $1000 minimum to book them for one date at a very small venue

if that sheds any light on the topic

[Neo Cassady]

What is "not very much" though? They are earning enough to where they make their living solely off their music. Are we talking about "not very much" as in-- "hmm. Maybe they're pulling in six-figures. But that's considered middle class these days. Especially for public figures"? Or "not very much" as in-- "Holy cow. Us fans need to gather around and do all we can to support them because they're working extremely hard and receive earnings that rival a school teacher's salary!"?

"Holy cow. Us students need to gather around and do all we can to support them because they're working extremely hard and receive earnings that rival an indie band's salary!"

/wishful schoolteacher

[Neo Cassady]

my friend tried to book vampire weekend and their touring manager/whoever was contacted asked for a $1000 minimum to book them for one date at a very small venue

if that sheds any light on the topic

What percentage of that $1000 does the band see, and what goes to the touring manager/whoever and other personnel?

[kbi the crowing]

What percentage of that $1000 does the band see, and what goes to the touring manager/whoever and other personnel?

no idea

[x togepi x]

What is "not very much" though? They are earning enough to where they make their living solely off their music. Are we talking about "not very much" as in-- "hmm. Maybe they're pulling in six-figures. But that's considered middle class these days. Especially for public figures"? Or "not very much" as in-- "Holy cow. Us fans need to gather around and do all we can to support them because they're working extremely hard and receive earnings that rival a school teacher's salary!"?

let me put it this way: i know someone in a band who's played fests, been on tv, headlined overseas, is on a big indie label and they still have to work at a coffee shop when they're not on tour. so yeah, not very much.

[Burn That Shit]

bands don't make money, they do get to see the world(the world being used VERY loosely, as in the united states. which is pretty boring.) and lots of ass though.

[-karla]

speaking from experience, i would say bands like vampire weekend (at their current level) would earn enough not to work a 'real' job... but they may need to supplement their income during non-touring/'down' times with a part-time job, especially if they have other payment responsibilities.

as someone mentioned earlier... probably won't make enough money to live on comfortably until you get to paramore's current success.

[shermanology]

I remember hearing Geoff from Thursday say he pulled about 30 grand in one year, second job included.

[JoshAugustine]

Sucks for Indie bands these days, due to piracy. I'm sure if there were no such thing, there would be a lot of bands making a decent living off of their music alone. But it's evolution, and you have to learn to adapt to it just like every other thing.

[indietrash]

@joshaugustine HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. "piracy", i.e. file sharing, is the first and foremost way independent artists get their music out there. if it weren't for file sharing, no one would ever have heard of Arctic Monkeys. and if you actually think artists make money off of selling albums, then you are sorely mistaken. hard.

[JoshAugustine]

@joshaugustine HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. "piracy", i.e. file sharing, is the first and foremost way independent artists get their music out there. if it weren't for file sharing, no one would ever have heard of Arctic Monkeys. and if you actually think artists make money off of selling albums, then you are sorely mistaken. hard.

Artists used to make a good amount of money off of their albums. It's the way independent artists get their music out there, yes. But before file sharing (which isn't sharing unless the artists allow it for free download) think about how they used to promote: Word of mouth, live shows, flyers, college radio, etc. Granted they did pass out demo tapes, but again that was their doing. I don't have a problem with file sharing, like I said, it's evolution in the industry, and you have to learn to adapt to it just like every other thing.

I haven't heard of Arctic Monkeys though, so obviously file sharing did nothing for them to get their music to my ears.

[highfidelity203]

It would be interesting to hear about this. I feel like indie bands don't sell as much merch as "scene" bands and they must make more than $1,000 a show. I wonder how long ago that was.

Indie bands also, must make a killing when they play colleges because bands typically charge colleges a crazy amount because they will pay it.

[indietrash]

Artists used to make a good amount of money off of their albums.I haven't heard of Arctic Monkeys thoughy, so obviously file sharing did nothing for them to get their music to my ears.

no they never made money off their albums. labels made money off their albums, like the venture Capitalist boss makes money off the people on the floor who are doing the work. also Arctic Monkeys is the fastest selling band in the UK ever, and are pretty much the closest thing to Beatlemania we've had since... well, since Beatlemania really. so if you've actually somehow missed them, you're probably living in a cave.

[Mosh]

Sucks for Indie bands these days, due to piracy. I'm sure if there were no such thing, there would be a lot of bands making a decent living off of their music alone. But it's evolution, and you have to learn to adapt to it just like every other thing.

i know this is off topic, but bands are making more money when you go to their shows and buy their merch rather than you buying their album(not to say that buying an album won't help them)

[yosoymoki]

"Holy cow. Us students need to gather around and do all we can to support them because they're working extremely hard and receive earnings that rival an indie band's salary!"

/wishful schoolteacher

Haha! My apologies. Hey! Indie bands and school teachers are changing the world these days! :)

Based on everyone's comments, it seems like they make most of their money off of touring, merch, and appearances. But I wonder what that ultimately amounts to. There was some article/blog entry from Amanda Palmer (from the Dresden Dolls) who made over $11,000 in profit just from selling 400 shirts, $25/ea via twitter in one day! Band shirts are really inexpensive to produce, so I'm sure the profit made on those is quick and easy money for bands.

And then we have the venues they're selling out. I remember Clap Your Hands Say Yeah were sold-out at the Brooklyn Academy of Music this year which holds 2,109 people. At $20 a ticket, thats $42,180 in one night!! Now multiply that by the many months of touring. However, how much is divided among the venue, managers, and band members. I have no idea.

[JoshAugustine]

i know this is off topic, but bands are making more money when you go to their shows and buy their merch rather than you buying their album(not to say that buying an album won't help them)

Right. I must of worded it wrong or something. Bands would be making *more money aside from merch, shows, sponsors, etc.

[JoshAugustine]

no they never made money off their albums. labels made money off their albums, like the venture Capitalist boss makes money off the people on the floor who are doing the work. also Arctic Monkeys is the fastest selling band in the UK ever, and are pretty much the closest thing to Beatlemania we've had since... well, since Beatlemania really. so if you've actually somehow missed them, you're probably living in a cave.

Yes, they made money and still do, make a percentage of the album sales. May not be the greatest percentage, but they still make money from album sales both physical (very small) and digital.

I don't care for the Beatles, so I probably wouldn't care for Arctic Monkeys, but I will check them out for you.

[JoshAugustine]

Yes, they made money and still do, make a percentage of the album sales. May not be the greatest percentage, but they still make money from album sales both physical (very small) and digital.

I don't care for the Beatles, so I probably wouldn't care for Arctic Monkeys, but I will check them out for you.

Don't like them. Main reason is I can not only already hear the Beatles rip off, but can also see from their image that they are displaying that they want to be the next Beatles. Not really my style either.

[caveBEAR]

I haven't heard of Arctic Monkeys thoughy, so obviously file sharing did nothing for them to get their music to my ears.

That doesn't mean file sharing failed, it means the label's advertising and marketing failed.

[JordanBuell]

my friend tried to book vampire weekend and their touring manager/whoever was contacted asked for a $1000 minimum to book them for one date at a very small venue

if that sheds any light on the topic


that honestly seems very reasonable to me.

[caveBEAR]

Don't like them. Main reason is I can not only already hear the Beatles rip off, but can also see from their image that they are displaying that they want to be the next Beatles. Not really my style either.

Are you fucking 5 years old? You listened to (at most) five minutes of the Arctic Monkeys, and didn't even know they existed 30 minutes ago, yet you've already branded them a 'Beatles ripoff'?

[JoshAugustine]

That doesn't mean file sharing failed, it means the label's advertising and marketing failed.

You must not understand that was a sarcastic comment towards the one I received from the indietrash fellow.

[JoshAugustine]

Are you fucking 5 years old? You listened to (at most) five minutes of the Arctic Monkeys, and didn't even know they existed 30 minutes ago, yet you've already branded them a 'Beatles ripoff'?

Yes that is right. I am five years old. I know what I like, is there a problem with that? I am open to suggestions to new music, but their music does really nothing for me and I'm on the 3rd song, and watched some live footage as well. I suppose you're an Arctic Monkeys fan, therefore you're pissed that I don't like them.

[Deadbolt23]

Yes, they made money and still do, make a percentage of the album sales. May not be the greatest percentage, but they still make money from album sales both physical (very small) and digital.

I don't care for the Beatles, so I probably wouldn't care for Arctic Monkeys, but I will check them out for you.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

[caveBEAR]

You must not understand that was a sarcastic comment towards the one I received from the indietrash fellow.

Use one of those /sarcasm things or quote him then, because you didn't convey sarcasm very well.

Yes that is right. I am five years old. I know what I like, is there a problem with that? I am open to suggestions to new music, but their music does really nothing for me and I'm on the 3rd song, and watched some live footage as well. I suppose you're an Arctic Monkeys fan, therefore you're pissed that I don't like them.

I vaguely enjoy the Arctic Monkeys, but when I can see the 5 minutes between you finding out about them and branding them a 'Beatles ripoff', it doesn't exactly convey maturity.

[JoshAugustine]

YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

And you are a 17 year old, from the UK, and I assume both a Beatles and Acrtic Monkeys fan.

Is it such a fucking crime to have an opinion these days and not to like what everyone else likes just because you don't? Get over the fact that not everyone has the same opinion as you, or likes the exact things. If we were all the same we might as well just have computer chips for brains.

Just because you may not like let's say Chinese food and I do, doesn't mean that I'd consider you an idiot. You just dont like it, nor the taste of it. It's the same thing. Doesn't mean you have bad taste in music, it's just not what you like to listen to.

[JoshAugustine]

Use one of those /sarcasm things or quote him then, because you didn't convey sarcasm very well.



I'm vaguely enjoy the Arctic Monkeys, but when I can see the 5 minutes between you finding out about them and branding them a 'Beatles ripoff' didn't exactly convey maturity.

That's awesome man, I respect who you listen to and like. It doesn't take me anymore than 5 minutes to figure out I don't like a pair of jeans. I don't see how that classifies as "mature" or "immature". Also, I did quote what he said.

To make you Arctic Monkeys fans happy, I have listened to the whole collection of songs on their myspace page. But it's just not my taste, sorry.

[caveBEAR]

That's awesome man, I respect who you listen to and like. It doesn't take me anymore than 5 minutes to figure out I don't like a pair of jeans. I don't see how that classifies as "mature" or "immature". Also, I did quote what he said.

To make you Arctic Monkeys fans happy, I have listened to the whole collection of songs on their myspace page. But it's just not my taste, sorry.

My point isn't that you like them or don't like them, I couldn't care less; it's when there was five minutes between you not knowing who the band was and branding them a Beatles ripoff. If you had said 'I don't like them, thanks for the rec' I would never have quoted you, but when you can write off an entire bands catalog as a 'ripoff' five minutes after you first heard them, well I haven't done that since I was 12.

[Deadbolt23]

And you are a 17 year old, from the UK, and I assume both a Beatles and Acrtic Monkeys fan.

Is it such a fucking crime to have an opinion these days and not to like what everyone else likes just because you don't? Get over the fact that not everyone has the same opinion as you, or likes the exact things. If we were all the same we might as well just have computer chips for brains.

Just because you may not like let's say Chinese food and I do, doesn't mean that I'd consider you an idiot. You just dont like it, nor the taste of it.

Yes. I'm from the UK. So I must like those two bands? Racist.
I called you an idiot, not because of your taste, but because you made idiotic statements.

"I haven't heard of Arctic Monkeys though, so obviously file sharing did nothing for them to get their music to my ears."
This is pointless. Just because you haven't listened to them, doesn't mean that they haven't earned a lot from file sharing.
"I don't care for the Beatles, so I probably wouldn't care for Arctic Monkeys"
This is just plain stupid. Because these two bands are famous in the UK, you assume they are the same?!

[caveBEAR]

This is just plain stupid. Because these two bands are famous in the UK, you assume they are the same?!

Obviously. There are some days I just can't tell Lil' Wayne and Green Day apart...

[JoshAugustine]

My point isn't that you like them or don't like them, I couldn't care less; it's when there was five minutes between you not knowing who the band was and branding them a Beatles ripoff. If you had said 'I don't like them, thanks for the rec' I would never have quoted you, but when you can write off an entire bands catalog as a 'ripoff' five minutes after you first heard them, well I haven't done that since I was 12.

Congratulations on puberty. But the imagery of their layout, and the style writings of their songs INSTANTLY reminded me of the Beatles. There is nothing wrong with a direct opinion. At least I am honest.

Like I said to the kid up there, it doesn't take you more than one bite of food to know that you don't like the taste of it. That happens in your brain within 10 seconds. I don't think the five minutes of two songs were not enough for me to have an opinion on if I liked it or not.

http://www.bandswallpapers.com/data/media/20/beatels_czar_bial10241.jpg
http://www.myspace.com/arcticmonkeys

[caveBEAR]

Congratulations on puberty. But the imagery of their layout, and the style writings of their songs INSTANTLY reminded me of the Beatles. There is nothing wrong with a direct opinion. At least I am honest.

Like I said to the kid up there, it doesn't take you more than one bite of food to know that you don't like the taste of it. That happens in your brain within 10 seconds. I don't think the five minutes of two songs were not enough for me to have an opinion on if I liked it or not.

http://www.bandswallpapers.com/data/media/20/beatels_czar_bial10241.jpg
http://www.myspace.com/arcticmonkeys

Then try switching out the word 'ripoff' with 'influenced by' and it won't seem like your making baseless claims about a band's entire discography in under five minutes.

[JoshAugustine]

Yes. I'm from the UK. So I must like those two bands? Racist.
I called you an idiot, not because of your taste, but because you made idiotic statements.

"I haven't heard of Arctic Monkeys though, so obviously file sharing did nothing for them to get their music to my ears."
This is pointless. Just because you haven't listened to them, doesn't mean that they haven't earned a lot from file sharing.
"I don't care for the Beatles, so I probably wouldn't care for Arctic Monkeys"
This is just plain stupid. Because these two bands are famous in the UK, you assume they are the same?!

No, I assumed they were the same because the guy who name dropped them, also said "Arctic Monkeys is the fastest selling band in the UK ever, and are pretty much the closest thing to Beatlemania we've had since... well, since Beatlemania really. so if you've actually somehow missed them, you're probably living in a cave." and to my eyes and ears, yes there are many similarities which is NOT why I do not like them. I mentioned earlier I don't care for the Beatles, so I probably wouldn't care for them since he pretty much implied they were the same band.

I am the least racist person you could have any correspondence to by the way. So you branding me as "racist" by talking to me on a forum message board within 5 minutes of knowing my existence, is idiotic and immature.

[caveBEAR]

I am the least racist person you could have any correspondence to by the way. So you branding me as "racist" by talking to me on a forum message board within 5 minutes of knowing my existence, is idiotic and immature.

I would agree.

[JoshAugustine]

Then try switching out the word 'ripoff' with 'influenced by' and it won't seem like your making baseless claims about a band's entire discography in under five minutes.

I apologize my choice of wording offended your views on my opinions.

[caveBEAR]

I apologize my choice of wording offended your views on my opinions.

I'm not trying to be a prick about it, but it's like seeing someone's girlfriend for the first time and saying 'what an ugly skank!'. You don't really know her, and you probably could have went with the nicer 'oooooh, she's something alright'.

I honestly don't care about you or your musical opinions, but when a band is written off by someone in under five minutes as a 'ripoff', it turns my head a bit.

[Deadbolt23]

No, I assumed they were the same because the guy who name dropped them, also said "Arctic Monkeys is the fastest selling band in the UK ever, and are pretty much the closest thing to Beatlemania we've had since... well, since Beatlemania really. so if you've actually somehow missed them, you're probably living in a cave." and to my eyes and ears, yes there are many similarities which is NOT why I do not like them. I mentioned earlier I don't care for the Beatles, so I probably wouldn't care for them since he pretty much implied they were the same band.

I am the least racist person you could have any correspondence to by the way. So you branding me as "racist" by talking to me on a forum message board within 5 minutes of knowing my existence, is idiotic and immature.

Honestly, I thought it was pretty clear that I wasn't being serious. I don't actually think you're a racist. Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet.
I assume that he doesn't mean Arctic Monkeys are similar to Beatlemania in sound. I'm pretty certain he meant the hype surrounding the band.

[JoshAugustine]

I'm not trying to be a prick about it, but it's like seeing someone's girlfriend for the first time and saying 'what an ugly skank!'. You don't really know her, and you probably could have went with the nicer 'oooooh, she's something alright'.

I honestly don't care about you or your musical opinions, but when a band is written off by someone in under five minutes as a 'ripoff', it turns my head a bit.

Haha, I like that "oooooh, she's something alright".

But I wasn't saying the band sucked, or that their music was "ugly" by any means. They're good at what they do, just not my style. I will take back what I said about "ripoff" and say "heavily influenced" though.

[JoshAugustine]

Honestly, I thought it was pretty clear that I wasn't being serious. I don't actually think you're a racist. Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet.
I assume that he doesn't mean Arctic Monkeys are similar to Beatlemania in sound. I'm pretty certain he meant the hype surrounding the band.

This would apply to many things I have said: "Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet." So thank you for not seeing that until the tables were turned towards you.

I am sure both you and I can agree that Arctic Monkeys and The Beatles sound pretty similar in ways to where if you were to refer them to someone, you'd say "sound like The Beatles, The Kooks and.."

[caveBEAR]

Haha, I like that "oooooh, she's something alright".

But I wasn't saying the band sucked, or that their music was "ugly" by any means. They're good at what they do, just not my style. I will take back what I said about "ripoff" and say "heavily influenced" though.

Then 'chip chip cheerio' to you, my good sir.

[Deadbolt23]

This would apply to many things I have said: "Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet." So thank you for not seeing that until the tables were turned towards you.

I am sure both you and I can agree that Arctic Monkeys and The Beatles sound pretty similar in ways to where if you were to refer them to someone, you'd say "sound like The Beatles, The Kooks and.."

But...you weren't being sarcastic.

And I wouldn't particularly. I can sort of see where you're coming from a bit. But I don't really think they are that similar.

[yosoymoki]

Righhhhht. SO, um. The Arctic Monkeys aren't really even considered an indie band. So, can we get back on topic? Does anyone else have any insight on this?

[indietrash]

Arctic Monkeys are indie, smart guy.

[yosoymoki]

Arctic Monkeys are indie, smart guy.

LOL ok. I stand corrected. The internet is so serious these days.


......Topic? Back on it?

[caveBEAR]

Jump on it.

[T-bag]

Indie bands aren't punk.

[indietrash]

yeh being independent isn't punk. Warner Bros has monopoly on punk.

[RyanDRose]

Indie musician can mean three things, and they all get vastly different amounts of money.

Indie can be a genre, in which case, pay is irrelevant.

Indie can be a band signed to an indie record label, which uses cheaper recording equipment and has fewer media connections, but they still keep 95% of your sales money even after you manage to pay off the recording and advertising debts.

Finally, and most importantly, indie musicians can be bands or artists they produce their own albums, sell them personally, and manage their own tours. These people make more money than Paramore or any famous band you can think of (except for a very tiny percentage of the most well-known artists)

When a signed band sells a gold record (which means it sold 500,000 copies) you might think they did well. Unfortunately for them, the record company holds them accountable for the recording costs and advertisement, and by the end of the squandering, the band might get to keep 30 or $40,000 collectively!

Meanwhile, if an unsigned band managed to get a gold record (bare in mind, this is very difficult without advertising), they would get to keep that money, as much as $5 million!

At that, a more realistic sales goal would be around 10 or 20,000, but when you get to retain all your sales money, you might end up with a good quarter of a million from CD's and t-shirts.

Being a signed musician isn't worth it anymore. If you want to be a musician and make money doing it, you're much better off doing it alone.

[ruffian]

I bet you're worried. I was worried. That's why I began this piece. I was worried about vaginas. I was worried about what we think about vaginas, and even more worried that we don't think about them. I was worried about my own vagina. It needed a context of other vaginas-a community, a culture of vaginas. There's so much darkness and secrecy surrounding them-like the Bermuda Triangle. Nobody ever reports back from there.
In the first place, it's not so easy even to find your vagina. Women go weeks, months, sometimes years without looking at it. I interviewed a high-powered businesswoman who told me she was too busy; she didn't have the time. Looking at your vagina, she said, is a full day's work. You have to get down there on your back in front of a mirror that's standing on its own, full-length preferred. You've got to get in the perfect position, with the perfect light, which then is shadowed somehow by the mirror and the angle you're at. You get all twisted up. You're arching your head up, killing your back. You're exhausted by then. She said she didn't have the time for that. She was busy.
So I decided to talk to women about their vaginas, to do vagina interviews, which became vagina monologues. I talked with over two hundred women. I talked to older women, young women, married women, single women, lesbians, college professors, actors, corporate professionals, sex workers, African American women, Hispanic women, Asian American women, Native American women, Caucasian women, Jewish women. At first women were reluctant to talk. They were a little shy. But once they got going, you couldn't stop them. Women secretly love to talk about their vaginas. They get very excited, mainly because no one's ever asked them before.

[xJesusFreakx]

Indie musician can mean three things, and they all get vastly different amounts of money.

Indie can be a genre, in which case, pay is irrelevant.

Indie can be a band signed to an indie record label, which uses cheaper recording equipment and has fewer media connections, but they still keep 95% of your sales money even after you manage to pay off the recording and advertising debts.

Finally, and most importantly, indie musicians can be bands or artists they produce their own albums, sell them personally, and manage their own tours. These people make more money than Paramore or any famous band you can think of (except for a very tiny percentage of the most well-known artists)

When a signed band sells a gold record (which means it sold 500,000 copies) you might think they did well. Unfortunately for them, the record company holds them accountable for the recording costs and advertisement, and by the end of the squandering, the band might get to keep 30 or $40,000 collectively!

Meanwhile, if an unsigned band managed to get a gold record (bare in mind, this is very difficult without advertising), they would get to keep that money, as much as $5 million!

At that, a more realistic sales goal would be around 10 or 20,000, but when you get to retain all your sales money, you might end up with a good quarter of a million from CD's and t-shirts.

Being a signed musician isn't worth it anymore. If you want to be a musician and make money doing it, you're much better off doing it alone.

...?

[theguy77]

bands make a small percentage of money off of their albums. the problem is, they tend to spend way more recording those albums with money that belongs to the label and was loaned to them, so their album sales have to be used to pay that money back, and most indie bands don't sell enough to split the difference. yes, most of their money comes from tour and good merch can also be a huge source of income for them, but tour is also really fucking expensive, especially if you tour in a bus. not to mention the band's manager and booking agent take like half of the tour profits and the rest are split up between ALL the band members. a band can very well make 200k dollars on a tour but then at the end of the day after all the expenses and splits each member ends up only with 10k.

[_><_]

I bet you're worried. I was worried. That's why I began this piece. I was worried about vaginas. I was worried about what we think about vaginas, and even more worried that we don't think about them. I was worried about my own vagina. It needed a context of other vaginas-a community, a culture of vaginas. There's so much darkness and secrecy surrounding them-like the Bermuda Triangle. Nobody ever reports back from there.
In the first place, it's not so easy even to find your vagina. Women go weeks, months, sometimes years without looking at it. I interviewed a high-powered businesswoman who told me she was too busy; she didn't have the time. Looking at your vagina, she said, is a full day's work. You have to get down there on your back in front of a mirror that's standing on its own, full-length preferred. You've got to get in the perfect position, with the perfect light, which then is shadowed somehow by the mirror and the angle you're at. You get all twisted up. You're arching your head up, killing your back. You're exhausted by then. She said she didn't have the time for that. She was busy.
So I decided to talk to women about their vaginas, to do vagina interviews, which became vagina monologues. I talked with over two hundred women. I talked to older women, young women, married women, single women, lesbians, college professors, actors, corporate professionals, sex workers, African American women, Hispanic women, Asian American women, Native American women, Caucasian women, Jewish women. At first women were reluctant to talk. They were a little shy. But once they got going, you couldn't stop them. Women secretly love to talk about their vaginas. They get very excited, mainly because no one's ever asked them before.


Quality post.

[Sarcasm]

I bet you're worried. I was worried. That's why I began this piece. I was worried about vaginas. I was worried about what we think about vaginas, and even more worried that we don't think about them. I was worried about my own vagina. It needed a context of other vaginas-a community, a culture of vaginas. There's so much darkness and secrecy surrounding them-like the Bermuda Triangle. Nobody ever reports back from there.
In the first place, it's not so easy even to find your vagina. Women go weeks, months, sometimes years without looking at it. I interviewed a high-powered businesswoman who told me she was too busy; she didn't have the time. Looking at your vagina, she said, is a full day's work. You have to get down there on your back in front of a mirror that's standing on its own, full-length preferred. You've got to get in the perfect position, with the perfect light, which then is shadowed somehow by the mirror and the angle you're at. You get all twisted up. You're arching your head up, killing your back. You're exhausted by then. She said she didn't have the time for that. She was busy.
So I decided to talk to women about their vaginas, to do vagina interviews, which became vagina monologues. I talked with over two hundred women. I talked to older women, young women, married women, single women, lesbians, college professors, actors, corporate professionals, sex workers, African American women, Hispanic women, Asian American women, Native American women, Caucasian women, Jewish women. At first women were reluctant to talk. They were a little shy. But once they got going, you couldn't stop them. Women secretly love to talk about their vaginas. They get very excited, mainly because no one's ever asked them before.
Hahaha. :appl: